A confusing group of terms (directed, adaptive,
selection-induced, Cairnsian) describing mutations has spread in the scientific
literature. As I see it, two basic areas can be distinguished: (1) an increase
in the beneficial mutation occurring in stressed
organisms;1 and (2) the imposition of a specific
selection on large numbers of organisms in order to find and amplify certain
novel mutations.2 The first aspect is most
important to the evolution/creation discussion, the second to the pharmaceutical
industry.

In the September 1997 issue of Scientific American,
Tim Beardsley reviewed the current Adaptive Mutation
situation.3 The possibility that living organisms
possess the ability to select for beneficial mutations when stressed has
challenged the conventional notion that mutations are purely random events and
overwhelmingly harmful. The starting point was a 1988 article by Cairns et
al.4 In those experiments, bacteria deprived of
the ability to utilize lactose were plated onto media with only that food source
available. Cairns reported a significant increase in the occurrence of mutations
that restored the lactose utilization ability compared with the same bacteria
living with other sugars available.

The most conservative explanation is that cells may simply
sustain higher rates of random mutations (hypermutation) under stress. This may
be for no other reason than that the resting bacteria experience a breakdown of
their normal biochemical processes. Therefore, rare beneficial mutations will
numerically occur more often. A more radical explanation is that the genetic
tool box of cells selectively mutates portions of its DNA with a much higher
likelihood of achieving beneficial results. A debate of these issues can be
found in Science.5 In my opinion, the
weight of evidence seems to be on the side of non-random mutation (shades of
Lamark!). God seems to have incorporated into life the ability to "find a
way."